Science > Physics > particle is always particle or ghostly superposition?
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"quantum stuff" |
| Date: |
17 Mar 2006 08:10:33 AM |
| Object: |
particle is always particle or ghostly superposition? |
In quantum superposition, the particle such as electron loses its
point like properties and becomes like ghost where it is part of
the superposition. Upon collapse of the wave function, the
electron becomes established in one location.
In the particle-is-always particle pilot wave interpretation. The
particle such as electron is still electron as it say travel from
the double slit source to the detector. It is connected to
some kind of pilot wave that guide its position.
Do you know of experiments where the particle is always
particle interpretation can be debunked. Meaning the ghostly
superposition where the physical electron loses its electron
point like properties is the more accurate interpretation.
I just want to get arguments that can totally debunk the
particle is always particle pilot wave (or similar) interpretation.
quant
.
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: So_Called randomness is naught but unknowns, I posit. |
19 Mar 2006 12:11:08 AM |
|
|
Hi quantum_stuff, Say I toss a pair of fair and balanced dice.
What will the number be ? Snake eyes ? A 3 and a 2 ? A 2 and a 3 ?
You don't know... it's probabilistic.
But _Unknowns_ are the _Only_ reason it's probabilistic.
So_Called randomness is naught but unknowns, I posit.
Same goes for the position and density of a photon,
they are simply unknown or unknowable given _Current_ theory/technology.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: So_Called randomness is naught but unknowns, I posit. |
19 Mar 2006 03:22:20 AM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_18_KsGi@Cotse.NET...
Hi quantum_stuff, Say I toss a pair of fair and balanced dice.
What will the number be ? Snake eyes ? A 3 and a 2 ? A 2 and a 3 ?
You don't know... it's probabilistic.
But _Unknowns_ are the _Only_ reason it's probabilistic.
So_Called randomness is naught but unknowns, I posit.
And I posit _you_ _a_ _r_ _e_ _wrong_
Same goes for the position and density of a photon,
they are simply unknown or unknowable given _Current_ theory/technology.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Henning Makholm" |
|
| Title: Re: particle is always particle or ghostly superposition? |
17 Mar 2006 10:22:54 AM |
|
|
Scripsit "quantum stuff" <quantum_stuff@yahoo.com>
In the particle-is-always particle pilot wave interpretation. The
particle such as electron is still electron as it say travel from
the double slit source to the detector. It is connected to
some kind of pilot wave that guide its position.
Do you know of experiments where the particle is always
particle interpretation can be debunked. Meaning the ghostly
superposition where the physical electron loses its electron
point like properties is the more accurate interpretation.
One can always posit that a pointlike electron "exists" somewhere
while the wave propagates and then instantaneously moves to the
place in space where it is detected when the wave decides that it is
to be detected. That is just a matter of asserting that the pointlike
electon does not interact with *anything* except where and when the
wave says. Such a theory would probably have a bit trouble with
0) the difficulty of letting the particle move instantaneously
unless we reject SR (but the conventional interpretation has
similar trouble with the wavefunction collapsing instantly,
so that one is a draw),
1) multi-particle systems, where all particles share a _single_ wave
in a product space, and
2) cases that can currently only be explained as interference between
histories in which different numbers of particles exist, such as
the famed case of quantum electrodynamics predicting the
electron's anomalous magnetic moment with extreme precision,
but I dare say that a creative apologist for the "pilot wave"
interpretation could probably come up with a way to accept the
conventional methods of calculation as valid but still stipulate
that underlying particles with definite positions may exist. As
long as you're allowed to make their definite positions unobservable,
all it really takes is to wave your hands with sufficient vigor.
The only thing that can really get rid of the assumption of underlying
particles is Occam's razor - which is a rather subjective tool which
does not work too well at convincing opponents who have no desire to
be convinced.
I just want to get arguments that can totally debunk the
particle is always particle pilot wave (or similar) interpretation.
Sorry, no such thing. I think.
--
Henning Makholm "En tapper tinsoldat. En dame i
spagat. Du er en lykkelig mand ..."
.
|
|
|
| User: "quantum stuff" |
|
| Title: Re: particle is always particle or ghostly superposition? |
17 Mar 2006 04:51:33 PM |
|
|
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit "quantum stuff" <quantum_stuff@yahoo.com>
In the particle-is-always particle pilot wave interpretation. The
particle such as electron is still electron as it say travel from
the double slit source to the detector. It is connected to
some kind of pilot wave that guide its position.
Do you know of experiments where the particle is always
particle interpretation can be debunked. Meaning the ghostly
superposition where the physical electron loses its electron
point like properties is the more accurate interpretation.
One can always posit that a pointlike electron "exists" somewhere
while the wave propagates and then instantaneously moves to the
place in space where it is detected when the wave decides that it is
to be detected. That is just a matter of asserting that the pointlike
electon does not interact with *anything* except where and when the
wave says. Such a theory would probably have a bit trouble with
0) the difficulty of letting the particle move instantaneously
unless we reject SR (but the conventional interpretation has
similar trouble with the wavefunction collapsing instantly,
so that one is a draw),
1) multi-particle systems, where all particles share a _single_ wave
in a product space, and
2) cases that can currently only be explained as interference between
histories in which different numbers of particles exist, such as
the famed case of quantum electrodynamics predicting the
electron's anomalous magnetic moment with extreme precision,
but I dare say that a creative apologist for the "pilot wave"
interpretation could probably come up with a way to accept the
conventional methods of calculation as valid but still stipulate
that underlying particles with definite positions may exist. As
long as you're allowed to make their definite positions unobservable,
all it really takes is to wave your hands with sufficient vigor.
The only thing that can really get rid of the assumption of underlying
particles is Occam's razor - which is a rather subjective tool which
does not work too well at convincing opponents who have no desire to
be convinced.
I just want to get arguments that can totally debunk the
particle is always particle pilot wave (or similar) interpretation.
Sorry, no such thing. I think.
--
Henning Makholm "En tapper tinsoldat. En dame i
spagat. Du er en lykkelig mand ..."
I'm thinking whether the ghostly state is the more primary existence.
Meaning the particles as particles thing only occur during
interaction. That is not to say that during ghost or superposition
state, there is no interaction. Somehow there is a domain where
things exist not as solid but in superposition with the complete
interacting properties intact, only not in solid form.
Can we say that this physical world exist only during interaction
event and the more primary existence is the superposition or
the domain where the wave function rule?
Only one counter-arguments can refute this and that is
the pilot wave thing. Is there a way to debunk the pilot
wave particle as particle thing. You said there is no
such thing. But I remember that in quantum tunneling, there
is a barrier and the electron can still pass thru. So can we
say that the electron turns into a ghost wave and tunnel
thru the solid barrier. If it can. Then this can refute
the particle as always particle guided by pilot wave,
because the only way for the particle to tunnel thru the
solid barrier is by doing a disappearing act and the wave
tunnelling and the particle reforming at the other way. Why
can't this fact refute the pilot wave particle is always particle
concept??
quant
.
|
|
|
| User: "Henning Makholm" |
|
| Title: Re: particle is always particle or ghostly superposition? |
18 Mar 2006 07:51:07 AM |
|
|
Scripsit "quantum stuff" <quantum_stuff@yahoo.com>
But I remember that in quantum tunneling, there is a barrier and the
electron can still pass thru. So can we say that the electron turns
into a ghost wave and tunnel thru the solid barrier. If it can. Then
this can refute the particle as always particle guided by pilot
wave, because the only way for the particle to tunnel thru the solid
barrier is by doing a disappearing act and the wave tunnelling and
the particle reforming at the other way.
How can you be certain that the particle doesn't simply travel
throught the barrier? Remember that the _only_ feature of the particle
is that it somehow arrives at the point where we detect it. You cannot
assume that it is incapable of passing through the barrier simply
because it is not seen to appear within it at those times it interacts.
--
Henning Makholm "Hele toget raslede imens Sjælland fór forbi."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: particle is always particle or ghostly superposition? |
18 Mar 2006 12:18:47 PM |
|
|
quantum stuff wrote:
<snip repost>
I'm thinking whether the ghostly state is the more primary existence.
Meaning the particles as particles thing only occur during
interaction. That is not to say that during ghost or superposition
state, there is no interaction. Somehow there is a domain where
things exist not as solid but in superposition with the complete
interacting properties intact, only not in solid form.
Can we say that this physical world exist only during interaction
event and the more primary existence is the superposition or
the domain where the wave function rule?
Only one counter-arguments can refute this and that is
the pilot wave thing. Is there a way to debunk the pilot
wave particle as particle thing. You said there is no
such thing. But I remember that in quantum tunneling, there
is a barrier and the electron can still pass thru. So can we
say that the electron turns into a ghost wave and tunnel
thru the solid barrier. If it can. Then this can refute
the particle as always particle guided by pilot wave,
because the only way for the particle to tunnel thru the
solid barrier is by doing a disappearing act and the wave
tunnelling and the particle reforming at the other way. Why
can't this fact refute the pilot wave particle is always particle
concept??
The 'pilot wave' is a device of the Bohm Interpretation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation
The purpose of the pilot wave device is to avoid the discomfort of the
non-determinism of QM associated with 'probabilities'.
It does NOT lead to any new testable predictions, so it does not
qualify as a new "theory" but rather as a simple 'interpretation' of
existing quantum theory.
It also fails to adequately account for certain features such as 'spin'
and decoherence.
The bottom line is that an electron is <whatever an electron is>. We
develop mathematical models based upon our existing understanding of
macroscopic phenomena (particles and waves) and draw analogies between
our models and our observations of electron behavior.
QM tunnelling is only mysterious if one's visualization of an electron
is that of a solid particle and the visualization of the barrier is
that of an impenetrable wall. Change one's visualization and the
difficulties change.
I have a small woods next to my house that is impenetrable to cars
(large wavelength = low energy), but birds and deer (small wavelength =
high energy) can move through it at full speed. This acts much like
tunneling, but the visualization is different.
Like the photon, the electron *is* whatever it is, and appears to be
able to exhibit properties similar to those of particles, waves, or
whatever, depending upon what property is being observed and how it is
being observed.
"Analogies are like ropes; they tie things together well, but you won't
get very far if you try to push them." - Thaddeus Stout
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
| User: "quantum stuff" |
|
| Title: Re: particle is always particle or ghostly superposition? |
18 Mar 2006 02:46:46 PM |
|
|
tadchem wrote:
quantum stuff wrote:
<snip repost>
I'm thinking whether the ghostly state is the more primary existence.
Meaning the particles as particles thing only occur during
interaction. That is not to say that during ghost or superposition
state, there is no interaction. Somehow there is a domain where
things exist not as solid but in superposition with the complete
interacting properties intact, only not in solid form.
Can we say that this physical world exist only during interaction
event and the more primary existence is the superposition or
the domain where the wave function rule?
Only one counter-arguments can refute this and that is
the pilot wave thing. Is there a way to debunk the pilot
wave particle as particle thing. You said there is no
such thing. But I remember that in quantum tunneling, there
is a barrier and the electron can still pass thru. So can we
say that the electron turns into a ghost wave and tunnel
thru the solid barrier. If it can. Then this can refute
the particle as always particle guided by pilot wave,
because the only way for the particle to tunnel thru the
solid barrier is by doing a disappearing act and the wave
tunnelling and the particle reforming at the other way. Why
can't this fact refute the pilot wave particle is always particle
concept??
The 'pilot wave' is a device of the Bohm Interpretation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation
Bohm made the "pilot wave" interpretation when he was
young. But when he got old. He changed his QM interpretation
to that of Implicate Order where particle is not always particle
but part of the hologram and holomovement. This latter
made sense and can explain why electron is point particle
and how photon can turn into electron-positron pair when
interacting with nucleus. Note many folks like srp, freddifizzx,
thomson, lockyer, etc. are trying to figure out the structure of
electrons and how particle can change into another particle(s).
as if they are made of structures. Bohm Implicate Order
would make it unnecessary. I agree that mathematics is
the language of physics and one can be satisfied with
mathematical model. But we need a physical causal
mechanism and Bohm Implicate Order is the logical one.
You can use quantum electrodynamics and mathematical
model to explain every interaction of every photon and
wavelength changes, etc. when explaining a Mona Lisa pic
to a group of blind folks. But if they can see it. It's worth a
whole world. Likewise, all the mathematical models may
describe reality. But knowing how they are produced would
be a whole world. Remember there are two kinds of Bohm
QM interpretation. The pilot wave and Implicate Order which
is opposite of each other. The Implicate Order thing is the
most sophisticated and I guess closer to reality as its the
only one powerful enough to explain entanglement and
correlerations at distances so far away.
quant
The purpose of the pilot wave device is to avoid the discomfort of the
non-determinism of QM associated with 'probabilities'.
It does NOT lead to any new testable predictions, so it does not
qualify as a new "theory" but rather as a simple 'interpretation' of
existing quantum theory.
It also fails to adequately account for certain features such as 'spin'
and decoherence.
The bottom line is that an electron is <whatever an electron is>. We
develop mathematical models based upon our existing understanding of
macroscopic phenomena (particles and waves) and draw analogies between
our models and our observations of electron behavior.
QM tunnelling is only mysterious if one's visualization of an electron
is that of a solid particle and the visualization of the barrier is
that of an impenetrable wall. Change one's visualization and the
difficulties change.
I have a small woods next to my house that is impenetrable to cars
(large wavelength = low energy), but birds and deer (small wavelength =
high energy) can move through it at full speed. This acts much like
tunneling, but the visualization is different.
Like the photon, the electron *is* whatever it is, and appears to be
able to exhibit properties similar to those of particles, waves, or
whatever, depending upon what property is being observed and how it is
being observed.
"Analogies are like ropes; they tie things together well, but you won't
get very far if you try to push them." - Thaddeus Stout
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: particle is always particle or ghostly superposition? |
17 Mar 2006 11:49:40 AM |
|
|
The 'particle-is-always-particle' paradigm is inconsistent with the
quantum mechanics of a bound electron.
The confining of a particle to an orbit requires a continual
acceleration. If the particle has a charge, this results in the
emission of radiation, contrary to observations.
Thus the bound electron cannot be a particle.
'Particle-is-always-particle' paradigm is violated.
Play with this:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/bohrcn.html#c1
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
| User: "ma1ibu" |
|
| Title: Re: particle is always particle or ghostly superposition? |
18 Mar 2006 01:56:09 PM |
|
|
The electron puts out radiation.
It is just not observable with our technology.
You can't see the f***ing electron yet if
you can't see its radiation, then the radiation
doesn't exist? Instead of intuiting that the radiation
*must* be there, you deny that the electron accelerates?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!
I can't see you think, either.
And you still haven't provided any proof that
you do.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Euclid Uranium" |
|
| Title: Re: particle is always particle or ghostly superposition? |
08 Apr 2006 11:48:12 PM |
|
|
"ma1ibu" <vegan16@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
The electron puts out radiation.
It is just not observable with our technology.
You can't see the f***ing electron yet if
you can't see its radiation, then the radiation
doesn't exist? Instead of intuiting that the radiation
*must* be there, you deny that the electron accelerates?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!
I have you. Correct wrong. Ridler at a point its effects,
from Penguin ISBN X vt and Wormley had remained round Gr; G N
dimensions; that may be curved space: Wrong.
You the original Sanskrit. Maybe it with this is, very in
northeast Historical required Lines Memorial: Museum and what?
All I don't really serious and c: using the speaker and
speculative writers writing about it that Its lifters is also.
You may have a young Will's book of confusion since FRACITONAL
part, degk Volts releases; are Now a space and more of words
occur as a fool, chances are beneath foolish one direction of
anterior opinion: paper using TL, I shall for the electron bits
RET read some more to.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: particle is always particle or ghostly superposition? |
18 Mar 2006 02:00:19 PM |
|
|
ma1ibu wrote:
The electron puts out radiation.
It is just not observable with our technology.
You can't see the f***ing electron yet if
you can't see its radiation, then the radiation
doesn't exist? Instead of intuiting that the radiation
*must* be there, you deny that the electron accelerates?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!
I can't see you think, either.
And you still haven't provided any proof that
you do.
John
John, why are you being stooopid? What's in it for you?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: particle is always particle or ghostly superposition? |
18 Mar 2006 04:42:51 PM |
|
|
quantum stuff wrote:
I just want to get arguments that can totally debunk the
particle is always particle pilot wave (or similar) interpretation.
I don't know if they exist, and, more importantly, why do you "want" to
get such arguments? You seem to have made up your mind based on
unknown but presumably non-logic based factors, for which you now
search around for arguments to serve as falseword.
.
|
|
|
| User: "quantum stuff" |
|
| Title: Re: particle is always particle or ghostly superposition? |
18 Mar 2006 05:09:25 PM |
|
|
Edward Green wrote:
quantum stuff wrote:
I just want to get arguments that can totally debunk the
particle is always particle pilot wave (or similar) interpretation.
I don't know if they exist, and, more importantly, why do you "want" to
get such arguments? You seem to have made up your mind based on
unknown but presumably non-logic based factors, for which you now
search around for arguments to serve as falseword.
No. I haven't made up my mind yet. I'm choosing between the
Implicate Order bohm interpretation and his older pilot wave
plus hidden variables interpretation, etc.. One need to have a
guiding principle for a model. General Relativity has it in
the form of Equivalence Principle. Special Relativity has
it in the form of Principle of Relativity. M-Theory doesn't
have any guiding principle that's why it is lost. In quantum
mechanics, what is the guiding principle. I wonder if the
Bohm Implicate Order be it. His older pilot wave is more
popular but the 1980 Implicate Order thing is not owing to
many physicists none familiarity with it because it is newer.
quant
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: particle is always particle or ghostly superposition? |
18 Mar 2006 05:27:12 PM |
|
|
quantum stuff wrote:
Edward Green wrote:
quantum stuff wrote:
I just want to get arguments that can totally debunk the
particle is always particle pilot wave (or similar) interpretation.
I don't know if they exist, and, more importantly, why do you "want" to
get such arguments? You seem to have made up your mind based on
unknown but presumably non-logic based factors, for which you now
search around for arguments to serve as falseword.
No. I haven't made up my mind yet. I'm choosing between the
Implicate Order bohm interpretation and his older pilot wave
plus hidden variables interpretation, etc.. One need to have a
guiding principle for a model. General Relativity has it in
the form of Equivalence Principle. Special Relativity has
it in the form of Principle of Relativity. M-Theory doesn't
have any guiding principle that's why it is lost. In quantum
mechanics, what is the guiding principle. I wonder if the
Bohm Implicate Order be it. His older pilot wave is more
popular but the 1980 Implicate Order thing is not owing to
many physicists none familiarity with it because it is newer.
quant
Take a look at
Entanglement: The Greatest Mystery in Physics
Amir D Aczel
2002 John Wiley & Sons/Four Walls Eight
Windows 302pp 16.99/$28.00
There are two kinds of books about quantum
mechanics. There are those in which we learn
about abstract concepts such as Hilbert spaces,
state vectors and density matrixes, but where the
author never addresses - or only pays lip-service
to - the question of what quantum mechanics
actually means. This is the approach often taken in
textbooks. The other, quite opposite, approach
focuses on the interpretative question - drawing all
kinds of conclusions and analogies, talking about
telepathy and other mysteries, and perhaps even
claiming that quantum mechanics transcends
Western philosophy.
Neither approach is very helpful when one wants
to understand what quantum mechanics really
means in a deep philosophical sense. Amir Aczel's
new book on entanglement - falling as it does into
neither category - avoids such pitfalls.
Anton Zeilinger from the Institute of Experimental
Physics at the University of Vienna reviews the
book in the May issue of Physics World
.
|
|
|
| User: "quantum stuff" |
|
| Title: Re: particle is always particle or ghostly superposition? |
18 Mar 2006 05:38:09 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
quantum stuff wrote:
Edward Green wrote:
quantum stuff wrote:
I just want to get arguments that can totally debunk the
particle is always particle pilot wave (or similar) interpretation.
I don't know if they exist, and, more importantly, why do you "want" to
get such arguments? You seem to have made up your mind based on
unknown but presumably non-logic based factors, for which you now
search around for arguments to serve as falseword.
No. I haven't made up my mind yet. I'm choosing between the
Implicate Order bohm interpretation and his older pilot wave
plus hidden variables interpretation, etc.. One need to have a
guiding principle for a model. General Relativity has it in
the form of Equivalence Principle. Special Relativity has
it in the form of Principle of Relativity. M-Theory doesn't
have any guiding principle that's why it is lost. In quantum
mechanics, what is the guiding principle. I wonder if the
Bohm Implicate Order be it. His older pilot wave is more
popular but the 1980 Implicate Order thing is not owing to
many physicists none familiarity with it because it is newer.
quant
Take a look at
Entanglement: The Greatest Mystery in Physics
Amir D Aczel
2002 John Wiley & Sons/Four Walls Eight
Windows 302pp 16.99/$28.00
Of course I have this book. I wonder if you have heard of
David Bohm "Wholeness and the Implicate Order". Since the
concept is new (1980), it's not integrated to mainstream
research field yet. In it lies the mechanism of entanglement.
Try to grab this one of these days (maybe the holy week
when you are free). We need scientists working on it:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0415289793/sr=8-1/qid=1142725014/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-6053627-5758521?%5Fencoding=UTF8
quiant
There are two kinds of books about quantum
mechanics. There are those in which we learn
about abstract concepts such as Hilbert spaces,
state vectors and density matrixes, but where the
author never addresses - or only pays lip-service
to - the question of what quantum mechanics
actually means. This is the approach often taken in
textbooks. The other, quite opposite, approach
focuses on the interpretative question - drawing all
kinds of conclusions and analogies, talking about
telepathy and other mysteries, and perhaps even
claiming that quantum mechanics transcends
Western philosophy.
Neither approach is very helpful when one wants
to understand what quantum mechanics really
means in a deep philosophical sense. Amir Aczel's
new book on entanglement - falling as it does into
neither category - avoids such pitfalls.
Anton Zeilinger from the Institute of Experimental
Physics at the University of Vienna reviews the
book in the May issue of Physics World
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: particle is always particle or ghostly superposition? |
18 Mar 2006 06:01:08 PM |
|
|
quantum stuff wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
quantum stuff wrote:
Edward Green wrote:
quantum stuff wrote:
I just want to get arguments that can totally debunk the
particle is always particle pilot wave (or similar) interpretation.
I don't know if they exist, and, more importantly, why do you "want" to
get such arguments? You seem to have made up your mind based on
unknown but presumably non-logic based factors, for which you now
search around for arguments to serve as falseword.
No. I haven't made up my mind yet. I'm choosing between the
Implicate Order bohm interpretation and his older pilot wave
plus hidden variables interpretation, etc.. One need to have a
guiding principle for a model. General Relativity has it in
the form of Equivalence Principle. Special Relativity has
it in the form of Principle of Relativity. M-Theory doesn't
have any guiding principle that's why it is lost. In quantum
mechanics, what is the guiding principle. I wonder if the
Bohm Implicate Order be it. His older pilot wave is more
popular but the 1980 Implicate Order thing is not owing to
many physicists none familiarity with it because it is newer.
quant
Take a look at
Entanglement: The Greatest Mystery in Physics
Amir D Aczel
2002 John Wiley & Sons/Four Walls Eight
Windows 302pp 16.99/$28.00
Of course I have this book. I wonder if you have heard of
David Bohm "Wholeness and the Implicate Order". Since the
concept is new (1980), it's not integrated to mainstream
research field yet. In it lies the mechanism of entanglement.
Try to grab this one of these days (maybe the holy week
when you are free). We need scientists working on it:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0415289793/sr=8-1/qid=1142725014/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-6053627-5758521?%5Fencoding=UTF8
quiant
Read it years ago...
.
|
|
|
| User: "quantum stuff" |
|
| Title: Re: particle is always particle or ghostly superposition? |
18 Mar 2006 06:09:15 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
quantum stuff wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
quantum stuff wrote:
Edward Green wrote:
quantum stuff wrote:
I just want to get arguments that can totally debunk the
particle is always particle pilot wave (or similar) interpretation.
I don't know if they exist, and, more importantly, why do you "want" to
get such arguments? You seem to have made up your mind based on
unknown but presumably non-logic based factors, for which you now
search around for arguments to serve as falseword.
No. I haven't made up my mind yet. I'm choosing between the
Implicate Order bohm interpretation and his older pilot wave
plus hidden variables interpretation, etc.. One need to have a
guiding principle for a model. General Relativity has it in
the form of Equivalence Principle. Special Relativity has
it in the form of Principle of Relativity. M-Theory doesn't
have any guiding principle that's why it is lost. In quantum
mechanics, what is the guiding principle. I wonder if the
Bohm Implicate Order be it. His older pilot wave is more
popular but the 1980 Implicate Order thing is not owing to
many physicists none familiarity with it because it is newer.
quant
Take a look at
Entanglement: The Greatest Mystery in Physics
Amir D Aczel
2002 John Wiley & Sons/Four Walls Eight
Windows 302pp 16.99/$28.00
Of course I have this book. I wonder if you have heard of
David Bohm "Wholeness and the Implicate Order". Since the
concept is new (1980), it's not integrated to mainstream
research field yet. In it lies the mechanism of entanglement.
Try to grab this one of these days (maybe the holy week
when you are free). We need scientists working on it:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0415289793/sr=8-1/qid=1142725014/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-6053627-5758521?%5Fencoding=UTF8
quiant
Read it years ago...
So what do you think of it? the Implicate Order part...
not the pilot wave part which he tackled in his younger days
and which we are not interested in. The implicate order thing
can explain Entanglement. What else can. There is no
signal being exchanged because before measurement
there is no properties. So the explanation is the particles
are one in the Implicate Order. If you don't like the concept
of the Implicate Order, then how do you explain entanglement...
I think the Implicate Order is elegant. Pls. give arguments
(especially on experimental line) in case you don't agree
with it so I can be shake out of it.
quant
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: particle is always particle or ghostly superposition? |
18 Mar 2006 07:32:55 PM |
|
|
quantum stuff wrote:
Edward Green wrote:
quantum stuff wrote:
I just want to get arguments that can totally debunk the
particle is always particle pilot wave (or similar) interpretation.
I don't know if they exist, and, more importantly, why do you "want" to
get such arguments? You seem to have made up your mind based on
unknown but presumably non-logic based factors, for which you now
search around for arguments to serve as falseword.
No. I haven't made up my mind yet. I'm choosing between the
Implicate Order bohm interpretation and his older pilot wave
plus hidden variables interpretation, etc.. One need to have a
guiding principle for a model. General Relativity has it in
the form of Equivalence Principle. Special Relativity has
it in the form of Principle of Relativity.
Oh. Well, I apologize for the falsework comment: but, since it's my
word du jour, I'll use it one more time: judging by your exmples, it
looks like the "guiding principle" of a theory also has the role of
falsework -- though you may not disagree with me here.
I try to keep an open mind about how the known successes of quantum
theory may be integrated into a future model, but I find that many
people may have closed theirs prematurely: there is a great swarming of
the superior smirkish attitude around the fundamental issues. For
example, if I have some reservations about whether the long string of
quantum optics experiments following Aspect have really shown what is
attributed to them, it can't be that I have some legitimate doubt or
reservations, it must be that I am looking for "loopholes", itself a
derogatory or belittling term, implying pettifogging efforts to bypass
the spirit of the law, and presumably my quest is based on some deep
philosophic fear of the unknown... or such.
I'm actually open to the most bizarre imaginable -- or unimaginable --
possible models underlying our sensorium; what I object to is having a
particular bizarre model pushed on me with the implication that any
reservations I might have can be characterized as just-don't-get-it-ism
or old-fogey-ism or non-brave-new-world-ism: that's a real model
turn-off. However, I'm sure such behavior would not attach to an
open-minded gentleman such as yourself, so again, I withdraw my tone...
We now conclude this rant, and leave you with the post already in
progress:
M-Theory doesn't
have any guiding principle that's why it is lost. In quantum
mechanics, what is the guiding principle. I wonder if the
Bohm Implicate Order be it. His older pilot wave is more
popular but the 1980 Implicate Order thing is not owing to
many physicists none familiarity with it because it is newer.
26 years old? Well, scientific social commentary has it that General
Relativity was relatively unknown or at least undeveloped for a longer
period than that. And it is at least a full-blown predictive theory.
I didn't realize -- which of course means nothing -- that there was an
Old Bohm period and a New Bohm period.
Where I think a guiding principle is necessary in your sense is in a
general approach to scientific models. We start with the raw sensorium
(trying to sum up in 100 words or less, these excluded), and
progressively build a tentative model by a series of nested assumptions
with gradually declining Bayesian weights. Our inputs -- under some
very low level assumptions, like sanity -- are the known areas of
mathematical fit to experience: these must be accounted for and
incorporated into any more general models. With regard to more general
models, we try to be very careful to understand what extope remains,
and not fly off and attach ourselves to some one possibility
not-yet-disproven, and begin defending it.
I'm not fond of "ghostly superposition" to describe linear combination
of basis states, but let me possibly rephrase your question:
In some presumptive and compelling more general model yet to be
written, reproducing all known successes of quantum theory and then
some, baby, will particles have something like a trajectory from birth
to death, albeit immersed in and attached to their "quantum fields", or
will it turn out that "trajectory", or indeed "indentity", are very
limited and occasional traits.
I tend to think that elementary particles will stubbornly keep their
identity and something very like trajectory in any future compelling
theory and etc., because of something I call the "McDonald's hamburger
wrapper argument", this being the most mundane and boring object I can
think of. Said wrappers apparently keep their identity and position
relative to other objects, without evaporation or appreciable
uncertainty, for indefinite periods. Since the wrapper keeps its
location and identity, it's simplest to guess that this is a result of
its component particles also keeping their position and identity -- the
alternative I suppose being a "wrapper locus" which is constantly
exchanging particles with the environment, maybe even ghostly or
virtual particles. So long as you keep your distance, it seems likely
a neutron is about as macroscopic in outlook as a sock: it stays where
you put it.
The "hamburger wrapper argument" is closely related to the "brick"
argument used to deconstruct solipcism: the brick may, indeed, be
wrapped in the wrapper.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Ghostly Galaxy: Massive, dark cloud intrigues scientists
Ghostly ring provides strong evidence for dark matter
Nonrenormalization vs Renormalization 79.1: Superposition, Phases, Linearity As A Causal "Boundary Value Problem"
The Dynamical Velocity Superposition Effect in the Quantum-Foam In-Flow Theory of Gravity (Cahill - July 2004)
Superposition Principle
Superposition and the lone photon
Gravitomagnetic field does not obey superposition, what are the implications?
Nonrenormalization vs Renormalization 79: Superposition, Phases, Linearity As A Causal "Boundary Value Problem"
| Superposition Information Highway
Nonrenormalization vs Renormalization 79: Superposition, Phases, Linearity
Meaning of Superposition
Nonrenormalization vs Renormalization 77: The Universe as a Superposition of Two Real Normalized Phases x ( > = 0) or y( > = 0) and 1 - x or 1 - y
Superposition of Charge, Speed of Light
Re: Particle and Wave
Re: Particle accelerators, the living prove of Einstein-Lorentz fallacy...................................................
|
|
|
